beeforpork

> while, of course, consumers get nothing

This would have been the case no mattern what.

Same here. And I have a friend who keeps his small IPhone because they stopped building smaller phones, too. There is a demand, maybe not that big.

For me, I want to be able to operate the phone with one hand, and the large screen makes it difficult to reach all the spots on the screen even with large hands. I do operate my Fairphone 5 with one hand, but it is super awkward and at some point, the phone will fall into a gully because I cannot hold it tight while navigating.

And I wouldn't mind 2mm more thickness if this means the cameras are flush with the back and the battery is larger.

And step relative sexual activity is prohibited?

This is about forbidding the depiction of such activity, so I don't think logic will help.

So, what, I need to search for 'sister's friend' instead of 'hermanastra'? 'hot' OK?

face palm

> But roughly 15% are plausible: “wooden chair,” “morning coffee.” That’s still 30 billion sensible pairs.

(1) Who counted those? Whence those numbers?

(2) The examples are normal two-word phrases with one word modifying the other, often categorised as an adjective. The examples are counter-examples to the very claim made in that article.

(3) Using Clause to brainstorm s.t. is a weird thing to say...

(4) I would say the use of 'lexicalized' is wrong or at least uncommon. It usually refers to specialised semantics of something that could be interpreted generically, too. Like 'sleeping bag'. Or indeed 'cold feet'. Lexicalisation may involve deleting spaces, like 'hotdog'. And I am pretty sure lexicalised phrasal words are usually intensionally listed in dictionaries. And so 'ice' is not lexicalised 'frozen water', but it is not overtly a phrase but is a separate atomic word.

=> I don't get the point.

This site made it my habit to search for granny knots on people's shoes on public transportation.

This makes me sad, because you are probably right. It's not the day for brightening my worldview.

Fair enough. :-)

Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.

Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.

Hmm, but the accusations are so vague that it's going to be even more speculation, don't you think?

The context is in the article. The context is access to information and communication. This is about forbidding young people to listen and to talk.

A: For small arrays. I would add: particularly if you need a stable sort algorithm, which is either complex (Block Sort) or uses O(n) space (Merge Sort).

Yes! I'd call this preparation for life.

Education and believably honest offers of support are needed to navigate the world, which is ugly and evil in some parts. Restrictions are really just counterproductive because curious young people are drawn to restricted stuff, and age restrictions build a sense of 'us (the young) against them (the adults)', so it's hard to convince that you actually offer honest support. Restrictions also focus on the bad parts, while we should instead focus on the good parts, the advantages of a global network of anything, which is totally amazing. Restrictions are counter productive.

Humans need to learn to live here, and it starts when we're young and curious.

Concerning hash algorithms, for me, it was cuckoo hashing that blew me away. The algorithm is so simple and yet has O(1) guaranteed lookup complexity, i.e., it is better on theoretical level than other open addressing. It is also versatile by having a configurable trade-off (the number of buckets) between time constant and fill ratio. Most impressive is its simplicity combined with that it was invented only so recently (2001).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo_hashing

> ... Anyone who designs UI for the real world already knows people barely read text ...

Then they are wrong. And are bad UI designers following folklore instead of sound ergonomy.

I absolutely hate icons, and parsing and remembering them causes great cognitive load on me. Also, icons like to change with each revision of the apps, with styles etc., and are not uniform across apps. This makes them completely useless to me. Maybe I can cope with an '[X]' to close a window, but that's about it. Even very common functions like 'Save' or 'Add' usually have completely arbitrary and confusing icons. 'Add' is not a long text. It works. I need text. Without any icons. I want to switch icons off so that the text can have maximum space to be reasonably large to be seen and read easily.

People are different is what UI designers should know instead.

Any experience with Codeberg + F-Droid after migrating from Github? I.e., is it possible to have F-Droid auto-detect releases on Codeberg like it does on Github?

Maybe have a look at the Curta for inspiration of a mechanical calculator. There's a 3D printable version of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9uRckJLqLk https://wudev.digitaltorque.com/articles/curta-1/

Well, many or even most non-Americans generally look up to America to learn. The USA are regarded as the pinnacle of world culture, industry, and commerce by the world. Even in non-western countries, and even if daemonized by certain leaders, the common people generally know that there are the greatest achievements in the USA. A few people may not do so, and may know how bad some corners are cut and how rotten some things are, but that's a minority. Also, if a powerful US politician farts, it is on all the front pages of all media outlets around the world. There's no escape, US news are pushed into all corners. And politicians in the world see that the thug model has worked quite effectively, and so strategies are taken over to do the same everywhere else, like ignoring science and instead citing 'common sense'.

All this BS that's currently going on spreads into the last corners of the world as ultimately good ideas, as truths, and the thugs are role models for the world.

It is not good. How to explain future to my kids? Yeah, sorry, I am also using the 'kid' argument now.

FWIW, JSON with `#` comments and redundant comma before `}` and `]` is already supported by many programming languages, e.g., Perl's JSON module (the 'relaxed' option). The advantage is that correct JSON also works, i.e., that JSON module just make it less error prone for humans, but otherwise sticks to the existing format.

> This is why I based my MAML on top of JSON. I fixed things that were a little bit annoying for me inside JSON.

And now it's incompatible with JSON, which is the worst part of the idea.

Instead, maybe propose a patch to your favorite programming language's JSON module to accept the same extensions for humans that the Perl module already supports, and maybe someone uses it for their JSON config files. This moves us together instead of further apart.

> Spoiler: I created my own configuration language maml.dev

Of course you did! :-)

Yes, I know. I was trying to stress exactly that.

And there, many cities look like that, too.

It's all about the angle. I am sure that just outside of the camera frame, there's a mobile phone shop, a Burger King or MacDonald's, and other trivially universal city commerce. :-) Let's see...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/hbRSXaDvfKNFmQtT6

No, but there's Rossmann, Kik, Döner, and Woolworth's.

Every time a robot or AI or whatever machine takes over the work of many workers, why not lower the average work week hours accordingly? The machine made the process more efficient, and the machine works instead of the worker. So less work is needed for the worker, and this could be averaged to pay out as a bonus for all workers. If you want to calculate this is money, you could also say that the machine does not work for free, but it is definitely cheaper than labor, so we could at least say that the difference of these costs is the gained efficiency, and this could be translated back to lowering the average work load of workers. And if you still want an incentive that more machines are introduced, you would say that 80% of the gained efficiency is translated back to lowering the average human worker's load.

There is no reason why we should have unemployment if machines make work more efficient -- it just means that there is enough money to be earned to give back part of it so that we do not need all the manpower.

What's wrong with this perspective?

Yes, all your points are valid for yourself. It's OK. I did not try to convince you that Python is bad. I only tried to explain why I hate it. In the hope that maybe you better understand why. It's too easy to say 'I hate XYZ', so I tried to explain myself. I am perfectly fine with you loving it. Let's see whether I can explain myself better:

> ... the Zen of Python ... > ... was deliberately written not to ... > ... Guido really didn't want ...

Yes, sure, I do not question that. I am merely saying that I hate many of the outcomes of that. I also hate discussions about that -- it is so quickly sacrilege to hate Python. I know that it's futile to discuss religion, and I am not trying to do that. But someone said that no-one hates Python -- well, I do, and this is why!

> ... explicit is better than implicit ...

Except for variable declarations, apparently. I would very much like them to be explicit, and it would be a start to fix the scoping problem.

> ... Dangerous? Not at all ...

I perceive a danger when the compiler/interpreter does not tell me that I am doing unintended things. Obviously, it cannot know what I intend. But proper and smaller scopes are generally regarded as helping humans to track the visibility of a variable. I certainly cope better with explicit variable declarations and with smaller scopes. I feel a danger that I accidentally misuse (or reuse) variables, e.g. by missing a `nonlocal` or `global` declaration or by using a variable after an `if` that was meant to be only valid local to that `if` block.

> ... Meanwhile, I'd look at C and think "I'm not sure which of my mistakes will lead to a memory leak or an exploitable buffer overflow." ...

Of course C is dangerous, that's why I cited it. But in at least one aspect, the scoping and related lack of explicit syntax to introduce new variables, I think Python is more dangerous than C. In most other aspect, C is definitely worse.

Comparing another language, and how it is possible to improve: JavaScript managed to fix scoping by introducing `let`. If you don't use `var`, then this particular problem is solved in JavaScript.

> ... the exceptions that are raised for non-exceptional cases ...

E.g., 'file not found' in open(). That's not exceptional, because it potentially happens with every usage of open(). You can never seriously use `open` without handling the case that the file is not found. Therefore, it's not exceptional, but it should be encoded in the return value.

> ... then I'd change it to not be a comprehension. ...

That's not the point. I don't want imperative, I want functional. I like list comprehension. I am not complaining about imperative `for`, but I am complaining about the confusing syntax of nested `for` in comprehensions. I am complaining of being forced to use imperative `for` by the weirdly confusing syntax of functional `for`.

Well, I hate Python. Main points for me: the scoping (or lack of it), the lack of declaration of new identifiers (linked to lack of scoping), the lack of update operators (like `a ||= (i > 0)`), the general lack of conciseness, the `a if b else c` confusion, the weirdness of comprehensions (particularly nested `for`s), the exceptions that are raised for non-exceptional cases. The heaviness of handling exception, like trying to delete a non-existing dict entry (need an additional `if` or a `try` block) or access a non-existing map entry (need to use `.get()` instead of `[]` or a `try` block).

Also, the syntax of layout is bad. I am not talking about layout itself, I do like Haskell syntax (despite being weird about parens). But if I write `a = b +` in Python on one line, then I get a syntax error, although the parser could instead assume that the expression is not terminated and must (obviously) continue on the next (indented) line. I hate that I need to use `\` or `(...)` to make this clear to the parser. I wrote parsers myself, and I know that it knows what needs to follow, and Python itself shows me that it knows: by raising a completely unnecessary syntax error.

It feels to me that the Python language design confuses `simple and easy` with `primitive`. If feels like a design without the knowledge of programming language research and ergonomy. It feels to me like a dangerous toy language, and I am never sure which of my stupid mistakes will be found by the compiler/interpreter, and which will just silently misinterpreted. And which of my perfectly valid requests will be rejected with an exception. In some aspects it feels less safe than C, particularly due to the lack of scoping and the danger of reuse of variables or introduction of new function local variables when actually, outer 'scope' variables were intended to be written.

This is not really meant as a rant, but it is a personal opinion, and I try to lay out my reasons. I am not trying to shame anyone who loves Python, but I just want to clarify that there are people who hate Python.

Oh, stop it! What are you really trying to say? 'The same language' is usually just a desguised nationalistic claim. Ask yourself: what is the advantage of a language over a dialect or vice versa? Why are you fighting for it (or against it)?

Linguistically, it does not matter -- there is no objective definition of the difference between a language, a dialect, or whatever -lect.

0.8mm is definitely out of USB 3.0 official spec and might damage the plug. The Spec requires 0.7mm with contacts and 0.6mm without, i.e., 0.05mm for the contact. See:

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...

Pages 42 and 44.

We bought two FP5 with e/OS/ from Murena (for spouse and myself), and would buy again. Why wouldn't you?

> It's the classic arsehole world we have become, people have to be indignant about everything.

They always have been. But this is not a case of that. Leaf blowers are loud and disperse dog poop. It's disgusting. Use a broom instead.

Does pandoc do JavaScript? For stuff that is rendered (I don't want animated, interactive PDFs...).